“Testimony on the progress of the New Jersey State Police under the consent decree

entered into with the Federal government concerning procedures, practices,

and policies relating to the management and operation of the State Police”

LOCATION:

Committee Room 8

State House Annex

Trenton, New Jersey

DATE:

October 24, 2002

10:00 a.m.

MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE PRESENT:

Assemblyman William D. Payne, Chairman

Assemblyman Joseph Cryan, Vice-Chairman

Assemblywoman Nilsa Cruz-Perez

ALSO PRESENT:

James F. Vari Gabby Mosquera

Peter J. Kelly Assembly Majority

Office of Legislative Services Committee Aide

Committee Aides

William Buckman, Esq.

Cooperative Attorney

American Civil Liberties Union2

B. Stephen Finkel

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety28

Thomas Manahan

Assistant Attorney General, and

Director

Office of State Police Affairs

Office of the Attorney General

New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety29

Detective David Jones

First Vice President

State Troopers Fraternal Association60

APPENDIX:

Testimony

submitted by

Guy T. Baehr

Representing

Society of Professional Journalists

New Jersey Chapter1x

rs: 1-79

ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAM D. PAYNE (Chairman): Good
morning, everyone. My name is William Payne.

As you know, this morning, the Assembly Regulatory Oversight
Committee will discuss the progress and the status of the New Jersey State
Police under the consent decree, which was entered into with the Federal
government and the State concerning procedures, practices, and policies
relating to the management and operation of the State Police. This consent
decree was entered into in 1999 -- December of 1999, and there’s a good deal
of interest in where we are now. The citizens of the State of New Jersey and
others are very interested in knowing where we are and the purpose.

As you know, in 1999, New Jersey was catapulted into the national
spotlight as a result of the infamous shooting by State Police -- in 1998 rather
-- State Police into a van carrying four college-bound minority youths. Three
were injured and, subsequently, became identified as victims of what became
widely known as racial profiling. It was charged that New Jersey State Police
regularly practice racial profiling, that is, stopping motorists because of their
skin color.

The State denied that racial profiling existed. However, often after
subsequent revelations, it became evident that the practice did exist among
some State Police, as well as other unacceptable illegal behavior by some
members of the State Police.

In 1999, the legislative Black and Latino Caucus, which is
composed of some 23 members of the New Jersey Legislature, with the support
of other members of the Legislature, conducted public hearings to determine
the extent of this State Police misconduct.

Many minority motorists appeared before this Committee at our
hearings and testified to the experience that they had had at the hands of some
police officers. At the conclusion of these hearings, the Caucus proposed
legislation to address the problems within the State Police. A number of these
pieces of legislation are now making their way through the Legislature.

The State finally admitted to the existence of racial profiling, and,
in December 1999, entered into a consent decree with the Federal government
to avoid a Federal civil rights suit.

We are conducting this hearing to learn of the status of the
implementation of the decree. And we are seeking to determine what progress
has been made, what strengths and/or weaknesses might still exist, and what
else needs to be done. We’re all working towards the day when we can look
with pride at this elite and outstanding State Police force. And we’re here
today for that purpose.

I’d like to know whether or not any of my colleagues would like to
make a statement -- hearings. (no response)

If not, I’m going to ask Mr. William Buckman of the ACLU, who
is here today-- We expect to hear from a number of community groups, as well
as representatives of the Attorney General’s Office.

My name is William Buckman. And I appreciate the opportunity
to address the Committee today. I am appearing on behalf of the American
Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

Since 1990, I have been involved in issues involving racial profiling
here in the State of New Jersey. I was privileged to be part of the defense team
that brought the Soto case in Gloucester County, which was the first case in our
courts to establish the existence of racial profiling on the New Jersey Turnpike.

I have, since that time, been engaged, on behalf of the ACLU and
other organizations, extensively in the investigation of the State Police, and
then litigation involving the State Police, on the issue of biased law
enforcement and racial profiling. And I have had the occasion -- or I’ve studied
extensively, the consent decree. And I can-- And I’d like to share with you
some of my observations about the consent decree, and particularly as it affects
the citizens of New Jersey.

I think, as an overview, it’s important to consider the fact that the
consent decree was entered into between the State of New Jersey and the
Justice Department after only one week -- or less than a week -- after the
complaint, which sought that consent decree, was filed.

There was never any opportunity for the citizens, interested
citizens and interested groups, to have input into the consent decree and to
have dialogue with the Department of Justice as to what we thought were
needed mechanisms in the consent decree. It was essentially negotiated in
secret and entered into during that rapid process.

It was only after the entry of the consent decree in December of
1999 that much of the most alarming aspects of the history and culture of
profiling were released. Approximately a year later, in November of 2000, is
when over a hundred thousand documents relating to racial profiling were
finally released as a result of litigation and other actions.

One of the most important aspects for the citizens of the State of
New Jersey, I would suggest to you, is embodied in Paragraph 128 of the
consent decree. Paragraph 128 of the consent decree specifically says that the
consent decree, in many ways, is a minimum, not a maximum. It says that the
consent decree should not be a bar to any other persons whose rights have been
affected, or any other organizations whose rights have been affected, for
seeking redress in the courts.

Now, one of the greatest disappointments to me, as a
representative of the ACLU and as a person who has been in contact with
numerous victims of racial profiling, is the fact that no sooner was the ink dried
on the consent decree that -- in the various courts in the State and in the
United States courts -- the State of New Jersey, through the Attorney General’s
Office, as well as through private firms hired by the State of New Jersey in
issues involving racial profiling, has repeatedly asked courts not to grant or
even examine the issue of any further needed injunctive relief, saying that the
consent decree occupies the field. And they have taken the position
consistently, despite the fact that Paragraph 128 says we do not occupy the
field, and there should be room for other interested parties and other
organizations to seek additional, complementary injunctive relief.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Let me interrupt you for one second,
if you don’t mind.

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes, sir.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Define occupies the field in laymen
terms.

MR. BUCKMAN: Well, essentially, the State of New Jersey,
through the Attorney General’s Office, has taken the position, in litigation in
all the courts, that when we’ve asked for injunctive relief, when we’ve said to
courts in racial profiling litigation that as part of the solution to this -- to a
particular case-- One case, in particular, is the case of Morka versus the State of
New Jersey, where we had 12 plaintiffs, all of which had been victims of racial
profiling.

In our complaint we said, in addition to any potential monetary
damages, we wanted the court to look at injunctive relief, additional needed
changes for the State Police. The Attorney General’s Office of the State of
New Jersey took the position that the court should not allow us even to discuss
additional changes or additional injunctive relief, because the consent decree
was there, and now everything was resolved magically, and everything was
hunky-dory, and no court should get involved because the consent decree, in
other words, occupied the field.

That’s one of the most needed changes, or that is one of the
greatest things of concern to me because the ink -- because Paragraph 128 is
crystal clear. It should not occupy the field. And the State of New Jersey,
through the Attorney General’s Office, should not be preventing victims and
organizations interested in this problem from seeking additional
complementary relief in the courts, when it’s necessary.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: I’m going to stop you again.

MR. BUCKMAN: Sure.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Again, for the laymen, when you say
that the consent decree -- the State says that the consent decree occupies the
field-- But you’re saying Paragraph 128 does not say that, right?

MR. BUCKMAN: That’s correct.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Paragraph 128 allows for others, other
than the Attorney General, to become involved in, what, bringing the--

MR. BUCKMAN: Paragraph 128 specifically says that the
consent decree is not a bar to other interested or aggrieved persons or
organizations to seek additional injunctive relief or to protect their rights as
they see fit.

And yet, in every piece of litigation that I’ve been involved in in
the State of New Jersey or in the U.S. district courts, on behalf of victims of
profiling, I have been met with, either from the Attorney General’s Office or
from the law firms employed by the State to defend the State in this litigation,
the argument that I should not be allowed to address additional injunctive
relief, because the consent decree is the beginning and end of it, and the courts
should not deal with the issue of whether or not further relief is necessary.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: They say other cases cannot be
brought -- or other charges cannot be brought?

MR. BUCKMAN: Other requests for injunctive relief should not
be allowed, because, according to them, the consent decree is the beginning
and end of it.

Now, clearly, that can’t be the case. We know from the monitors’
reports themselves that there are additional changes that are necessary. And,
most importantly, we know that from the hasty one-week process, during
which the consent decree was arrived at, there have to have been some things
that were overlooked. And I’m prepared to tell you some of the aspects that
are necessary to examine, and would be complementary relief to, the consent
decree.

But the Justice Department was wise when they inserted Paragraph
128 in the consent decree. They were wise by saying, “This isn’t the be all or
end all. Other groups and other organizations can enforce their rights as they
see fit. And the consent decree will not be a bar to that.” And yet, in every
piece of litigation that I’ve been involved in since then, it has been the official
position of the State, or its privately engaged attorneys, that no additional
injunctive relief should be addressed at all in the courts.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: That’s the official position of the
State?

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes, in every case that I’ve been involved in.
I have fought motion after motion, in my cases, where the Attorney General’s
Office, or the attorneys hired by the State, have asked the court to dismiss my
claims for injunctive relief, saying the consent decree should be the beginning
and end of it. It’s already in place, and no victims of racial profiling should be
allowed to address in the courts additional needed relief.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: And that’s happened-- I mean, that’s
always been--

MR. BUCKMAN: I have had that happen, easily, over four to six
times in all the litigation I’ve been involved in since the entry of the consent
decree.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Even when you refer to Paragraph 128
of the consent decree?

MR. BUCKMAN: Absolutely, yes. Despite Paragraph 128, which
is crystal clear, we have dealt with that motion and that position repeatedly.

Now, from my observation, one of the most important things, one
of the most important protections that the citizens need, is for it to be made
clear that victims of profiling, when they have valid cases in court, should be
allowed to ask for additional injunctive relief.

One of my plaintiffs in the Morka case was Dr. Elmo Randolph, an
African-American dentist, who was stopped over a hundred times on the New
Jersey Turnpike. Once, when his car was searched and an officer found dental
magazines in his trunk, the officer--

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I’m sorry. Did you say stopped,
himself, over a hundred times?

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes, over a hundred times.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Over what period of time?

MR. BUCKMAN: Over a period of four years.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Twenty-five times a month -- or a year
-- this guy--

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes. He had a gold BMW. And, probably, in
one of the most poignant pieces of testimony that he offered in one of the
cases, he was asked, “Did you ultimately get rid of the gold BMW?” He said,
“Yes, I got rid of the gold BMW because I was being stopped too many times.”
“What kind of car did you get?” “I got a black BMW.” We asked him, “How
many times were you stopped in that?” He said, “Six times.” We said, “Well,
didn’t that anger you?” He said, “The gold BMW was too much. The black
BMW, I felt, was just the price of being an African-American man with a good
car. I can live with that.”

But when the officer found dental magazines in his trunk, the
officer remarked to him, “Well, I guess you’re really not lying. You’re really a
dentist,” as if an African-American can’t be a dentist.

Now, Elmo Randolph, having been stopped over a hundred times
on the Turnpike, surely is someone that has a right to go into the courts of
New Jersey and ask for additional injunctive relief.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: And that was denied?

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Is there any redress? I mean, if you
refer to the consent decree, that should be sufficient, shouldn’t it? It would
seem to me-- We have a representative here from the Attorney General’s
Office who will be testifying after you.

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: But I just want to be clear, because
many of us in the State of New Jersey are under the impression that with the
consent decree in place, that we are addressing these problems that exist and
that the citizens of New Jersey have more of an opportunity to resolve these
problems, not less.

MR. BUCKMAN: I’m sorry to interrupt. Only through the
legislative process. The consent decree-- I don’t want to be misunderstood.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Right.

MR. BUCKMAN: The consent decree is a good and valuable first
step. But it should not be seen as the be all and end all. It should not be seen
as the maximum. It should be seen as the minimum. And yet, the State has
employed it as the central core of its argument -- that the consent decree is the
maximum, that citizens and organizations should have no right to go into the
courts of New Jersey and seek additional complementary injunctive relief. We
have repeatedly met with that.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Mr. Cryan has a question.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Let me see if I understand you. You
are an attorney here. Is that correct?

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: You go into the courts in a consent
decree that’s entered in, via the court system.

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: This is a legal document, is it not, the
consent decree?

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: And as an attorney, you make a legal
argument. And what you’re telling me is that the State or the AG’s Office
makes a legal argument, and you’re not able to win these arguments in court.
Is that correct?

MR. BUCKMAN: We have not been successful.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: So, what’s the problem. We have a
legal recourse here, entered into by the courts, where the courts have
interpreted it. It sounds to me like you lost a legal argument. And we have
this document in place that folks are using. I’m not sure I understand your
point -- that you’re saying that we have this decree-- It sounds to me like you
just don’t like the State’s position because you’re losing in court.

MR. BUCKMAN: Well, it’s clear that, certainly, I don’t like the
State’s position. And I don’t like the State’s position because I think the
consent decree is clear. Paragraph 128 says--

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: And I agree with you.

MR. BUCKMAN: --that other persons should be allowed to come
to the courts asking for additional injunctive relief.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: “Nothing in this consent decree shall
be construed to impair the right of any person/organization to seek relief
against the State or State Police.” That’s the line you’re referring to.

MR. BUCKMAN: That’s correct.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I can read it and have no
disagreement. You and I may interpret, but we have a system of law in this
country, a system that’s actually implemented this consent decree, I might add.

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: And that same system is the one that,
it sounds like-- And the story you’re providing is you’re going in with one
argument. The AG’s Office is going with another. And you’re losing to the
same system that has provided this consent decree, have you not?

MR. BUCKMAN: Well, the system that presided-- The consent
decree was produced as a result of very specialized litigation, which allows only
the Department of Justice to seek certain -- to proceed against certain law
enforcement agencies. And they did so under that United States statute, under
that aspect of the United States code. And they produced the consent decree
in this quick process of one week.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: With all due respect, though, this
consent decree -- and you’re minimalizing the activity of engaging in, and the
State of New Jersey adopting, this. I think it’s fair to say that the State of New
Jersey, the taxpayers, me and you, have invested, I would safely say, the
millions of dollars, in effect, to ensure that all of our millions of citizens are, in
fact, being provided for accordingly under this decree.

I don’t understand how it is that your complaint about the consent
decree is only -- was done in a week. Frankly, I’m not sure I accept your
premise. But, as such, therefore, it shouldn’t be a guiding document, which is
what I understand your testimony to be. And the reason I interrupt you is
because I don’t think you have it written out, do you? I don’t have typed
testimony.

MR. BUCKMAN: No, that’s correct.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Okay. Do I understand that correctly,
that your argument is the time frame wasn’t long enough to provide the
consent decree, and the statement that’s in the consent decree, you haven’t
been able to win a legal argument with?

MR. BUCKMAN: Well, I think you’re essentially correct. The
time frame was very quick. I think it’s a matter of public record that the time
frame is such that the complaint that the U.S. Justice Department filed was,
I believe, on, like, the 20th. And the consent decree was entered into on the
27th. There was no invitation or no notice to any other parties to participate.
There was no opportunity for any other parties to intervene and to participate
whatsoever.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Who participated?

MR. BUCKMAN: Simply the Department of Justice and the
Attorney General’s Office. Those were the parties that produced the consent
decree. Interested parties--

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Is that unusual?

MR. BUCKMAN: It’s a mixed bag. In some other-- For instance,
I believe, in the Pittsburgh litigation, organizations that had been litigating
police misconduct were consulted, such as the ACLU and other organizations.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: You’re not saying that it’s-- This
document, as you say, is a very positive tool to address the problems that exist
or were revealed during that period of time, aren’t you? You’re saying that.
And you’ve only cited Paragraph 128 as an area that you have some problems
with. Do other people in your field feel the same way about this particular
prohibition of seeking additional injunctive relief? Do other people share your
view that this is a document that is weakened by this practice?

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes, sir. I mean, certainly, it is necessary for
victims of profiling, and who have been affected by profiling and biased law
enforcement, to be able to litigate in the courts, when necessary, and ask for
additional injunctive relief, to ask for additional areas.

For instance, one of the main aspects that -- and to just give you
an example. The consent decree does not require records to be made public.
It doesn’t require-- One of the most difficult hurdles we faced in the Soto
litigation was to make sense of the State Police stop-statistics, how often
minorities were being stopped. We literally had to litigate for about five-and-a-half years to finally get that material.

The consent decree does not require that the State Police stop-statistics be made public. Now what we get are monitors’ reports or summary
reports.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Wait a minute. With all due respect,
in Section 114 of this decree, under public information, it says, “These
aggregate statistics shall include the number of motor vehicle stops, the reason
for the stops, the enforcement actions, the procedures.” What else is it you
want?

MR. BUCKMAN: That’s the aggregate statistics. That’s the exact
point. It’s the aggregate statistics that were looked at. The public, through
interested organizations, should access, have access to, the exact statistics: to
the summonses, to the exact number of stops, to the numbers of people who
are stopped, to the identity of the people who are stopped, so that we can put
a very important check and balance on this. Aggregate statistics don’t
necessarily tell me whether or not profiling is still afoot. It tells me what
someone else’s interpretation of those statistics are, but it doesn’t give me the
tools that the court ultimately gave me in Soto to look directly at these
statistics and the source documents and say, “Guess what? It’s a very, very
serious problem, and it’s still going on.”

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Is it your position that you want the
identity of the people that are stopped to actually be public record? Did I
understand you correctly?

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes, sir. Certain organizations--

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I think I’m going to disagree with you
on that.

MR. BUCKMAN: Certain organizations and interested people
should be allowed to look at the source documents, because the problem with
racial profiling arose when the public was kept, for decades, from being allowed
to look at the phenomenon of stop rates.

Now, the problem of racial profiling wasn’t solved by the
Department of Justice or wasn’t exposed by the Department of Justice or by
the Attorney General’s Office, or by the New Jersey State Police. Keep in
mind, please, that the real proof of racial profiling in the State of New Jersey
came about first in the case of State v. Soto, when a New Jersey Superior Court
finally said to the State, “Stop hiding those statistics and let these lawyers look
at the source documents.” That’s when our statisticians started looking at the
documents. That’s when we started correlating race with the numbers of
stopees. And we were able to say that an African-American was five times
more likely to be stopped on the Turnpike than a caucasian.

Now, aggregate statistics-- If we are left in the future with nothing
but aggregate statistics, that won’t be enough for interested organizations and
persons to put a necessary check and balance to examine these statistics. I
can’t go into court with aggregate statistics.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Well, suppose I get stopped.

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Let me go through this. Do you
believe that it’s your right, as an interested person, to be able to find out who
I am, why I was stopped? You should, therefore, I assume, be able to, as a
matter of public record, even contact me to the nature of my stop. Do I
understand you correctly?

MR. BUCKMAN: I think that when I have anecdotal evidence
that shows a reasonable basis to believe that profiling is going on, I should be
able to get aggregate -- beyond aggregate -- statistics to be able to start
reconstructing the stop-statistics.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: But you have-- The United States of
America and the State of New Jersey have entered into a consent decree. You
don’t need any anecdotal evidence. It’s here. It’s in black and white, to be
candid.

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes, it’s there, and--

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: And what if you’re on a witch-hunt?
Who stops that?

MR. BUCKMAN: So far, for the last 10 years, I haven’t been.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Sir, with all due respect to you and
your organization, which I greatly admire, suppose it’s some other interested
party? Why don’t we do it that way?

MR. BUCKMAN: Well, I think that in light of the debacle that
we suffered, first of racial profiling proceeding for over 20 years, and for the
State of New Jersey having denied it and the State of New Jersey having fought
any efforts to examine the statistics, and then three innocent men being shot--
I think we should be thinking more in terms of making sure that interested
persons and parties can effect needed checks and balances, at least for another
decade or so, rather than immediately say, “Let’s limit these statistics.”

The biggest problem in proving racial profiling, and examining
racial profiling, and seeing to it that it never occurs again is the issue of seeing
to it that statistics, the raw data, is available to interested persons and parties.
Aggregate statistics won’t resolve that.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: And therefore, I would assume--

MR. BUCKMAN: For instance--

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Therefore, I would assume -- let me
finish -- that the independent monitor, and I want to emphasize the term
independent, who has access to any piece of information he chooses, isn’t
satisfactory, in your mind, to be able look at these statistics and judge whether
or not they’re correct. Is that correct?

MR. BUCKMAN: Certainly, we need other entities other than
just the independent monitoring.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: In your opinion.

MR. BUCKMAN: Remember, the consent decree only has a life
of five years. We’re going to need to look at this for a lot longer. This is a
phenomenon that has lasted for decades. And I think it’s cautious to say that
we need to consider remedies for more than five years.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: So your complaint is the consent
decree was done too fast and doesn’t last long enough.

MR. BUCKMAN: No. My suggestion is also that the consent
decree be seen as a minimum, not a maximum, and that there are other
complementary areas that we should look into, and that we should assure the
public that they could have access to, above and beyond, the consent decree.

For instance, in this area of stop-statistics, it is a matter of public
record if you’re stopped by the police and given a warning or a ticket. That’s
a public document.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I’m aware of that.

MR. BUCKMAN: What we could simply do, and require of the
State Police, is to mark race on the ticket. That’s a public document. There
are so many documents that we produce every day that have racial
information. We should have racial identifiers on our tickets. That would go
a long way. And we should make it clear that the public has access to warning
and ticket information.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: You, obviously, Mr. Buckman, have
thought about some areas where this consent decree does not, cannot, measure
up, and cannot meet all of the needs to bring about the kind of agency that
we’re looking for.

You probably -- and this is not-- I think we can be here all day
picking out various individual areas that we need some improvement on.
Perhaps you need to communicate with those people in responsible positions,
maybe the legislators, this Committee, to have some kinds of suggestions as to
how this may or may not be improved.

I said at the outset that this hearing was to find out where we are,
to see whether or not there’s been progress, or measure the progress that’s been
made under the consent decree, and then to find out whether or not there are
some areas that might need to be improved.

The fact is that we need to be sure that what we’re doing here is
going to be effective in eliminating the problems that brought us to this point.
And I know that you represent one side of the issue. We have the people that
represent the other side. But I want, for the citizens of the State of New
Jersey, to have a fair and impartial means to address these problems because
all of the citizens of New Jersey deserve to have a fair treatment by law
enforcement.

But I think the word witch-hunt was mentioned before. There
very well may be people out there who would like to find ways to continue to
have a negative kind of impression of the State Police or even the government,
and might pick up various kinds of things that might have some nuances that
will negate the positive things. I’m looking for the positives, as well.

But I also, and bottom line, want to make sure that what we’re
talking about now is not something that’s going to -- this consent decree
doesn’t lull people into thinking that this is a panacea. I think we need to have
a very candid discussion about where we are with this and whether or not it’s
an effective tool.

And the last point I’m going to make here, and I’ll let you finish
your testimony, is that we recognize that this consent decree has a -- sunsets.
And I want to make sure that this does not stop, the improvements don’t stop,
when and if this consent decree is over. That’s why there is some legislation
going through the Legislature right now to codify and to put into law some of
the recommendations that have been made.

But I want to make sure that the citizens of New Jersey have a --
and also that police officers have a fair and impartial review of their practices
and that we can bring about the improvements that we need.

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes, sir. And I agree with what you said. And
I think, in many ways, you summarized my impression. And I don’t want to
be misunderstood. It’s a reasonable first step, but it is a first step. It’s not a
panacea. That is the most important thing to be kept in mind.

I’ve touched upon the need -- the issue that, in terms of evaluating
performance of the consent decree, we should seriously consider the bonifides
of how Paragraph 128 is being used. I think we have to consider, in terms of
how we administer the consent decree and how we deal with this problem, the
issue of the public’s access to records so that the public can act as a needed
check and balance to independently verify this issue.

For instance, in looking at the monitors’ reports, there is
substantial discussion in the monitors’ reports about the length of time and the
progress made towards eliminating internal investigations and internal
investigation backlogs. That’s a very important aspect.

But I would pose to the Committee, and I would throw out to you,
a major issue that is not addressed by the consent decree, or is not addressed
adequately at this time, is the issue of when internal investigations complaints
are used in a retaliatory fashion. We still have that serious problem. We’ve
seen that in the news recently, about the issue of investigations and IAB
complaints being used in a retaliatory function.

The issue of how quickly we dispose of IAB complaints doesn’t
deal with whether or not IAB complaints are being unfairly leveled at critics
within the State Police. Those who say, “I see illegal practices,” have to be
protected. And we have to deal with not only the amount of time, but
insulating people from being retaliated against through the IAB process.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: You’re saying that retaliatory actions
are being taken now against certain members of the State Police?

MR. BUCKMAN: I would say that that’s still a problem. That is
still a problem -- that critics find themselves on the wrong end of retaliatory
IAB complaints.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: We’ve had a couple of new
superintendents since this whole fiasco was revealed. You’re saying that, under
these two succeeding superintendents that have been here since then,
retaliation and retaliatory actions are being taken against some of the law
enforcement people who criticize or bring complaints?

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes, and please remember, it’s a large
organization.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Yes.

MR. BUCKMAN: Even the best intentions of a good or a well-meaning superintendent will not necessarily insulate people below him from
being retaliated against or for IAB, even in the best system.

There is no structure in place for quick screening of IAB
complaints for possible retaliation. And there’s no structure in place to protect,
other than a very extensive and long-lived CEPA lawsuit to protect critics from
retaliation. So the consent decree doesn’t address that.

And when we look at the monitors’ reports on the issue of disposal
of Internal Affairs complaints, it leaves -- we have a large loophole that is still
unaddressed on that issue. And remember that, or at least from my experience,
profiling survived and thrived because of a wink and a nod and an unofficial
or an unwritten enforcement policy, whereby troopers who did not want to
participate in it found themselves at the wrong end of actions sometimes --
retaliatory actions, failure to get promoted, retaliatory transfers, and that sort
of thing. So we’re talking about a whole package of things that have to be
addressed.

The consent decree is a good thing. It’s not a panacea. But we
still have work to do in terms of the culture of the State Police and some
mechanisms that are missing.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Mr. Cryan.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I have a couple of questions here on
this subject.

Let me see if I understand this right. We have had-- Our last two
superintendents -- one’s been -- I think Santiago was Hispanic. I’m not sure
he’s a minority -- and Carson Dunbar, who was African-American. And it’s
your position that, even with the climate changes at the top, that at some level
in the State Police there’s this retaliatory effort against certain State Troopers
because of--

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I don’t want an example. I want some
numbers. I mean, to make a statement like that, I think, deserves a little more
than a generality. Are these the legal cases that you’ve been in court with?

MR. BUCKMAN: Some of them. And some of them are troopers
that have suffered retaliation.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: So that I understand, are these some
of the cases that you’ve argued in court that the consent decree hasn’t given
you enough information -- you’ve lost in court?

MR. BUCKMAN: No, these are cases on behalf of -- where I’ve
represented troopers who have been the victims of retaliatory conduct. And
these are also not cases just involving me. It’s a matter of record that there are
dozens of cases involving retaliation.

And just so that we can make it clear, we’re talking about troopers
from all sides of the spectrum, those who complained about profiling and those
who complained about this or that administration.

The fact of the matter is, very often, unfortunately, troopers who
complain or speak out about concerns that they have within the State Police
find themselves saddled with an Internal Affairs complaint. Now, whether it’s
ultimately found to be baseless or it’s ultimately found to be the basis of
discipline, it’s still an anchor around that trooper’s neck. And it hurts. It
impacts negatively on that trooper’s career. So, we still have an entire area that
-- of this aspect of the culture and mechanics of the State Police that is not yet
addressed by the consent decree.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I’ll ask Mr. Manahan this when he
comes, or someone from the State Police. As I understand it, there are
complaints against troopers, both internal and external, on often a retaliatory
basis, just because of the nature of the fact that they write a lot of tickets and
things like that. Is that correct?

MR. BUCKMAN: That’s true.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: And that would result in an Internal
Affairs investigation, would it not?

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: So, by the nature of their enforcement
position, the State Police troopers have a natural inclination to have
complaints waged against them because they’re in a punitive measure as a
result of issuing law enforcement.

MR. BUCKMAN: That’s one of the dangers of the job.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Okay. And I’ll ask someone from the
State Police whether they have it or not-- I assume that at some level, there’s
complaints that are justified, and there are statistics that say some of these are
good, and some of these are bad.

MR. BUCKMAN: That’s right.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: And your complaint, as I understand
it, is some of these are a result -- because somebody whistle blowed.

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes, sometimes -- many times these complaints
are generated from within the organization.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: So another trooper complains about
a trooper. Is that what you’re telling me?

MR. BUCKMAN: That’s correct. Remember, the hierarchy
institutes an investigation, because a trooper has complained about his or her
working conditions or about conditions that he or she has observed. So when
we talk about the monitors’ reports and we talk about the consent decree --
talking about the need to quickly dispose of Internal Affairs complaints, we
haven’t yet dealt with the problem -- the long-seeded and long-standing
problem in the New Jersey State Police of inappropriate use of the Internal
Affairs mechanism to silence critics. And that remains a major concern.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Mr. Buckman, some of the things
we’re talking about, here now, seem to be problems that exist in any agency,
not only law enforcement agencies. Whistle blowing, etc., where people have
been penalized by their superiors or by others within their departments, other
than law enforcement, penalized or maybe a retaliatory action taken against
them-- I think that’s something-- And then that’s why, I suppose, there are
some whistle blowing laws out there to protect people who do that.

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: We’re talking here about retaliation.
The consent decree came about as a result of the charges of racial profiling,
etc., practices that were against people simply because of their race or ethnic
background, etc. And I think that’s what this consent decree addresses. There
are probably a lot of other areas that need improvement in the State Police
organization; maybe the uniforms or whatever. I don’t know. But we’re
talking here today about the consent decree that addresses the problems of
racial profiling and those related problems, such as that.

I have heard, also, that there have been retaliations against some
of the officers who have brought charges or complaints, etc., and we need to
address that. And I suppose that, in this instance, the consent decree should
be, or maybe needs to be, stronger in that area. But I think what we want to
zero in on, and keep focus on, is what the purpose of this consent decree is
about, and what brought it about, etc., and whether or not we’re addressing
this.

I have spoken with some members of the State Police who
frequently have said that, “If this happens, or this law is passed,” and so on and
so forth, that, “It’s going to be difficult for my guys to do their job. They’ll be
afraid to do their job.” I don’t believe that. I don’t believe there are people
that are simply not going to be able to carry out their job because of more and
more monitoring to make sure that they’re doing the job properly. I have more
faith in human nature. I have more faith in people’s abilities to do the right
thing.

The same thing here. I think that, with the consent decree, it’s
geared toward trying to bring about the changes that are necessary here. There
has to be-- And I was going to ask you, in your concluding remarks, whether
or not there are any positives that come out of the consent decree. Is there
anything that’s positive or good about this? Have you seen any improvements
whatsoever? I know they’re slow in coming about, that I’m not satisfied with
what I see. But I’d like to know whether or not it’s all doomsday. I mean, is
there anything -- is there any light at the end of the tunnel? And if there is a
light, is it another train coming in our direction? What is it? I want to know,
from your perspective, because you represent the other perspective, is there
anything good that is coming out of this consent decree?

MR. BUCKMAN: Yes. It’s positive that we have a consent
decree. It’s positive that we have public scrutiny and the Department of
Justice scrutiny of these situations. It’s positive that we have independent
monitors.

But if I were to conclude, I would say that we have to keep track
of the fact of something that you said, Mr. Chairman, and that is, this is not
a panacea. It is the beginning and not the end. We cannot pat ourselves on
the back for having this consent decree. We have to say that this has to be a
foundational block in a process of making additional changes that are not
addressed in the consent decree. I’ve tried to highlight a few.

And in conclusion, I would also just go back very briefly to this
retaliatory aspect and say, yes, this problem of retaliation exists in every
organization. But we have had, and the consent decree is aimed at an
organization that has had, particular problems. And we want to make sure that
this organization has a safe atmosphere for critics to come forward when they
see problems. This is an organization.

The consent decree is all about having needed oversight. One of
the most important aspects of oversight is that the people in the field can speak
freely and without fear. And that’s why, in particular, we have to pay attention
to that as we move forward.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Thank you for coming. It’s very good
to see you. It’s always good to see you.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FINKEL: It’s always a
pleasure.

We are prepared today to discuss the topic of the State Police and
the progress under the consent decree. I don’t want to deviate from the subject
before this Committee. I will say-- And we’re not going to speak about
litigation, things that are beyond the pale of this subject matter. I will say that
Assemblyman Cryan was right-on with his remarks regarding -- you make an
argument in court, and you’re trying to convince the judge. So, that’s all I
would even say on that.

With me is Tom Manahan, who is an Assistant Attorney General,
and is Director of the Office of State Police Affairs, which is a unit that was set
up within the Office of the Attorney General to monitor the State Police and
to work with the Federal monitors in implementing the consent decree.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Just, by way
of some background, for the Committee’s edification, during the time that I
was the Union County prosecutor, the law enforcement community in Union
County developed a data-collection program that was voluntary. And the
purpose of that was to promote not only confidence in the law enforcement
community, but it was to restore the integrity of law enforcement. And I will
say it was met with very positive results, both within and without the law
enforcement community.

Principally, as a result of that -- entering into that voluntary policy
-- I was requested by Senator Corzine to appear and to provide a statement in
support of Federal legislation known as the End Racial Profiling Act. And that
was in June of last year. As a matter of fact, I was asked to attend by the
ACLU and give a statement on behalf of that bill, which I was pleased to do
because not only is it my belief, but it’s the belief of this Attorney General and
it’s the belief of the good and honorable members of the Division of State
Police, that there is conduct which they recognize as legally permissible, and
there’s conduct which comes at a social cost.

The State Police also recognize, today more than ever, that they
cannot distance themselves from the concerns of the citizens that they must
serve, nor can they do their job in the shadow of mistrust. And so, it is my
view, and the view of the Division of the State Police, and most certainly the
view of the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey, that this consent
decree will be enforced by its terms. It is a starting point. There is no
argument there. And we’re here today to report on the progress, to respond to
inquiries, and to also note areas where we’re not moving as quickly as we would
like to move.

I just want to conclude my initial statement, before I get into the
progress, Mr. Chairman, by stating, again, that it is the position of the
Attorney General of this state that the two worthy and commendable
objections of protection -- excuse me, of reduction of crime and protection of
one’s civil rights should not be in conflict, and one should not be subordinate
to the other. And it is within that policy and spirit that we will move forward.

I have provided to the Committee today a copy of the sixth
progress status summary of the consent decree. This was filed yesterday in the
Federal court. I’m not going to ask you to read it or absorb it right now.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: I already have. I just did. (laughter)

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Okay. But
this report is public. It is required to be filed by the terms of the consent
decree. And it is made available not only to the public, but to the Federal
monitors and to the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. It is, in some
ways, our report card. It’s our report, and then the monitors give us our report
card very shortly thereafter.

There are four major areas that the consent decree talked about,
in terms of reform. One was in the field operations, which, I think, is that
which the public is most aware -- that is the road stops. The second area of
concern addressed was Internal Affairs. The third was the training -- the
necessary training that should be needed to be provided. And the fourth was
the development of an early warning system by way of a computer -- excuse
me, a data program that has come to be known as MAPS.

I thought it would be more efficient if I talked about where we
believe we made progress in those areas and where, perhaps, we can do much
better. I’ll start with field operations.

Since the inception of the consent decree in December of 1999,
the Division of State Police has revised numerous standard operating
procedures directed towards compliance with the consent decree. Now, more
than ever, what a trooper does during a road stop is recorded and is made
public. When I say recorded, I mean not only on a document, but, certainly,
it is literally recorded. Supervisors not only review those reports and are
compelled to do so within 10 days of the stop, but they also conduct random
reviews of the video tapes, depending on what they see in those reports.

We believe that this has assisted not only in providing better
supervision, but in making sure that the stops that are being made by the state
troopers on our roadways and on our highways are done not in any way that
crosses legal lines, but are done legitimately. We cannot be sure, absolutely
sure, ever, that every stop is done in conformance with the law, but that is our
goal. We’re not saying that we cannot meet that. We’re saying that, today,
we can’t say that we are able to achieve that.

One of the areas that we are attempting to assist the trooper on
the road with is a provision of legal guidance. What we have done, in the last
two months, is we have had an attorney from the Office of State Police Affairs
assigned to each troop station, and there are five. That attorney is to go to the
station to confer with the supervisors, the station commanders, to determine
what problems there may be in the areas of search and seizure, consent decree
issues, and to advise them to make sure that what they’re doing is both in
accord with the consent decree and with the law.

We’ve also, with the assistance of the 21 county prosecutors, been
able to provide those same station commanders with a contact person from the
respective prosecutors offices on a 24-7 basis for the same reason, principally
for search and seizure. We want to encourage the State Police to seek legal
counsel before they take certain steps, certainly those steps that are outlined
within the decree that are considered law enforcement activities, such as when
you ask an individual to step outside of a vehicle, when you are going to
request someone to give their consent to search, when you are going to perform
a nonconcentual search.

And, if I could stop there for a moment, another area that we
believe we have improved is that we -- the State Police, during this last review
period, amended another standard operating procedure. There is, within the
consent decree, a requirement that before a trooper can request consent, he or
she must get a supervisor’s approval. And, where practical, that supervisor
must be on the scene when that search takes place. What we caught, and I will
say the State Police caught, was that the consent decree did not have the same
mandate for nonconsensual searches, that is, ones based on probable cause.
That has been rectified. Now the same SOP applies for those, as well. And
again, that was caught, Mr. Chairman, by the lieutenant in the State Police
who believed that that should be done.

In field operations, the principle difficulty we have today is we
have so many reports, so many numbers, we need to make sure we are -- we
have sufficient supervisors to do an adequate review.

In terms of the Federal monitors, we confer with them, not just
when they come for their visits or not quarterly or semiannually. We confer
with them almost weekly. We must run these SOPs passed them for their
approval, and we do. We also seek their advice in certain areas in the hopes
that we will be able to come into compliance.

Another area of field operations that we noticed there was a
problem is -- it was not that the State Troopers were not filling out the certain
mandatory reports -- they were filling out too many. They actually were
overdoing it. They actually were filling out reports on nonconsent decree
stops, principally because they were concerned about getting in trouble if they
didn’t. But what that resulted in was an undue and unnecessary number of
reviews by supervisors of nonconsent decree stops. And with the advice and
the permission of the monitors, we’re going to see that they don’t have to do
that anymore and that they focus on those issues that they should be focusing
on.

In the area of Internal Affairs, I did want to comment, certainly,
about that. As you are well aware, one of the criticisms of the monitors was
that there was a tremendous backlog. That backlog became the study by the
Office of Government Integrity, which I won’t go into in detail here, except to
say that if there were mistakes that were made because of that backlog, it was
because there was too much detail. It took too long for these to take place,
because they were going over and over and over these cases. We have not
sacrificed efficiency for speed, but I’m pleased to say that the backlog has
pretty much been cleared up.

The monitors are very satisfied, and noted it in their last report,
with thoroughness of the investigations conducted by the Office of Professional
Standards, which is the IA bureau, with the detail with which those
investigations have taken place. And yes, have we seen complaints that are
without basis? Yes, we have. We most certainly have. Have we seen
complaints, perhaps, that have a motive that is not pure? Yes, we have. And
OPS has worked as quickly as it can to separate the wheat from the chaff and
to -- because that’s not fair to the trooper, regardless of what it is.

But, in addition to the OPS review, Mr. Chairman, the Office of
State Police Affairs has investigators that are not attached to the State Police,
but to the State Police Affairs, who can and do conduct simultaneous and
independent investigations. In other words, if a complaint comes in, the Office
of State Police Affairs, in effect, has concurrent jurisdiction. But we may also
exercise our right under the decree to remove the case from OPS, if we believe
there is a conflict, and conduct the investigation ourselves. We have done this
-- OPS has done this -- excuse me, Office of State Police Affairs has done this,
on numerous occasions. This is not to slight the professionalism of OPS, but
merely to point out that this is a safeguard that is brought into play by the
decree, and will continue.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Can you clarify something?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Sure.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: You say that the Office of State Police
Affairs exists now to investigate. Tell me what--

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Yes, the
Office of State Police Affairs has many duties, and principally the duty of
oversight. But in the area of Internal Affairs investigations, the consent decree
permits the Office of State Police Affairs to conduct its own investigation of
the complaint, or a simultaneous investigation, with OPS, Office of
Professional Standards, which is the State Police.

There have been instances where the Office of State Police Affairs
has taken over an investigation, principally where there’s a potential conflict.
And those investigations, whether they’re conducted by the Office of State
Police Affairs or the Office of Professional Standards, OPS, have been
determined by the Federal monitors, who review all the files, to be thorough
and complete. And that’s a matter of public record.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Give me an example of-- The Office
of State Police Affairs is within the Attorney General’s Office, correct? Both
of them are, aren’t they?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Well,
technically, yes, because the Division of State Police is within the Attorney
General’s Office.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Okay. So, the Office of State Police
Affairs is in the Attorney General’s Office. And they -- oversight, etc. They
conduct certain kinds of investigations of complaints.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Correct. The
Office of State Police Affairs was actually created prior to the consent decree,
in December of 1999. But it was incorporated within the consent decree.

The principal role of the Office of State Police Affairs is one of
oversight, to ensure compliance with the mandates of the decree, which are
many, and also to monitor the overall operation of the State Police. But I was
focusing in on the areas of Internal Affairs to show that there are safeguards
and the sort of checks and balance that, even where the State Police are
investigating the matter, the Office of State Police Affairs can conduct their
own investigation, as well, or an independent investigation. And that has been
done.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: The Office of Professional Standards,
now, is separate and apart from the Office of State Police Affairs, correct?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: That’s
correct.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: The Office of Professional Standards,
or OPS, is also located in -- where?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: It’s actually
located in West Trenton in a different facility.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: But in the-- What Department is it?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Well, it
would be under the Attorney General.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Both of these.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Yes, but
that’s part of the State Police. OPS, Mr. Chairman, is the Office of
Professional Standards. Those are members of the New Jersey State Police.
That’s the IA Division, as it used to be called, Internal Affairs Division --
Internal Affairs Bureau. They’re physically located in a different building as
a recommendation of the consent decree.

So they conduct the vast majority of these Internal Affairs
investigations. But if there’s a conflict, the Office of State Police Affairs --
they’re independent investigators. They also can and do conduct the
investigations.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: I’m just trying to understand. The
OPS is the Office of Professional Standards, which you said replaced-- What
was it before? What was it called?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: It was the IA
Bureau, Internal Affairs Bureau, IAB.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Okay. All right, fine. And the OPS
does-- Tell me, once again. Take me through this. Their responsibility is to
do -- what now?

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Okay. And the Office of State Police
Affairs has oversight over the State Police and oversight over the compliance
with the consent decree and overall operations of the State Police.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: That’s
correct.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: And both of them, however, are in the
Law and Public Safety Department.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: That’s
correct.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Okay. Are they on the same level?
Where are they? For instance, you have-- And do they have different powers?
You say-- Which one can take the investigation away from the other?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: The Office
of State Police Affairs can remove the investigation from the State Police.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: From OPS.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Both of them are in the Division of
State Police.

Why don’t you explain their structure?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FINKEL: The Office of
State Police Affairs is independent of the State Police -- that is in the Office of
Attorney General and has oversight. The Office of Professional Standards is
the IA Bureau in the State Police.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: In the State Police. Oh, okay. Fine.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FINKEL: And so there’s an
independence there in the Office of State Police Affairs.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Okay, all right. Fine. Who heads the
Office of State Police Affairs?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: I do.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Okay, very good. And the OPS is
headed by?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Right now
it’s Major Brennan. Joseph Brennan is assigned to head OPS.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: A major.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: And you’re not a-- You’re a director.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: I’m a
director, yes.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Okay. Do you have people within
your Department who also are troopers, etc.?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Yes. I’ll give
you the breakdown. Presently, the Office of State Police Affairs, in addition
to myself as the Director, there’s a Deputy Director, Mamta Patel. She’s an
attorney, as well, Deputy Attorney General.

We have, in addition to Ms. Patel, five other attorneys that are
presently assigned to serve as counsel. They have many duties. One, I
mentioned before, is they are advisors to the State Police at particular stations.
But they also are, in a manner of speaking, the prosecutors of Internal Affairs
matters. When discipline is brought, they present the case. So, that’s part of
their role.

In addition, we have investigators who are of the Division of
Criminal Justice, assigned to the Office of State Police Affairs. They have
varied roles as well. But, principally, what they do is they review IA
investigations, every one of them, regardless of who conducts it. And they also
do independent IA investigations. They also oversee other areas of consent
decree compliance, including training. They’re involved in that matter.

And we also have three members of the New Jersey State Police
Division of State Police, who are permanently assigned: a lieutenant and two
sergeants, who work as intermediaries between the Division of State Police and
the Office of State Police Affairs, but also are involved in consent decree
compliance. In fact, it was the lieutenant who is assigned to OSPA, Lieutenant
Peters, who made the observation I mentioned earlier, about the fact that there
was no SOP for nonconcentual. So they serve a vital role as well.

That’s it.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Thank you.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: If I could just
move quickly. I talked about IA and field operations. Again, there’s progress
that can be and should be made in both of those areas. And we will strive to
do that.

In regard to the training component, it was recognized by both the
Division of State Police, certainly by the Attorney General, and certainly by
the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, that there was not adequate
training given to members of the State Police, particularly in certain areas such
as ethics, search and seizure, and cultural awareness and cultural diversity. As
such, there are mandatory courses that are given each year on those subjects,
and they’re updated each year.

What we did most recently was, in order to make sure that the
courses had some meaning and some context for the State Troopers, we, of
course, asked for their input after they took the courses. From that input,
today, for example, in our cultural awareness course, we have added such things
as verbal judo, which is basically roadside manner. We have used videotapes
from the State Police to demonstrate the good and some of the conduct that,
perhaps, could be improved. So we use the videotapes of the State Police to
help show what’s good, what’s bad, and how they can do better.

We also have added a component, this time around, at their
request, as to more about the Muslim culture, particularly after September 11
and the concerns that they may have had, and, of course, an ongoing awareness
as to diversity.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Where does this--

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: This is given
at the police academy at Sea Girt. And it’s given to every member of the State
Police.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: How long has that been implemented?
I know, for instance, the monitors, from time to time, review your procedures
and proposals, etc. And I’ve read where there’s been -- often give you very
positive kinds of responses to the proposals. And we read in the papers where
the Federal monitors praise the State Police, etc. But I think that there’s a
difference between the proposals of how we’re going to address these things
and whether or not they’ve been implemented, and whether or not, in fact,
there’s been enough time to implement them. And I just don’t want the people
to become confused about the fact that the plans are excellent, but we simply
have not had enough time to implement all these things.

One of the major problems, I think, that we’ve had in the past at
a lot of these stops is that there seems to be a lack of understanding, cultural
understanding, of the diverse population we have in the State of New Jersey.
In other words, some of the people who seem to be attracted and drawn to or
recruited into the organization had very limited exposure to other people, other
cultures, etc. And, therefore, often this kind of lack of exposure to other
cultures -- understanding of them -- came out in the manner in which many of
the people were treated when they were stopped.

And I think-- I don’t know whether recruitment comes into play
here, or whether or not there’s psychological testing or anything like that. But
a lot of this can be avoided, I think, if the people that we’re recruiting to
become officers understand, number one, what we’re all about. Number two,
we have to change the culture, I think. I’ve heard, from time to time, about
the culture of the organization. I’ve heard that it’s a paramilitary, and that’s
fine.

But, it seems to me, that some of the limitations have been caused
by the lack of experience with other groups that some of the troopers have had,
etc. And I note here that you’re talking about the training in order to cure
that. How effective has that been, or how long have you been doing this in
order to see whether or not-- Is there anything you can measure as to whether
or not the kind of training, to develop open-mindedness and understanding of
other groups--

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: In answer to
your question, Mr. Chairman, the training has been going on for almost three
years. And you make a very good point. There’s one thing to come up with
a program or a process for compliance -- the second part is the implementation.
And each of the tasks within the consent decree have two facets to them --
most of them do, anyway. One is to develop policies and procedures, and the
second is the implementation of those policies and procedures.

It is in the second part of the task that we have had some
difficulty, and I think it’s mostly the product of time -- it’s not the product of
effort or direction.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Sure.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: In terms of
your-- I think you didn’t use the word recruitment, but I think you meant to
talk about recruiting, if you didn’t use that word.

Yes, the Office of State Police Affairs is involved in issues as to
recruitment. We review applicants to determine whether they’re qualified.
But we also work with the State Police to make sure that they are recruiting in
the broadest possible area to make sure that, to use a well-worn phrase, the
Division of State Police looks like the people they serve. And that is taking
place, and that is part of the change that is taking place, and a positive one.

I also want to point out, if I may, that the consent decree is
scheduled to terminate in December of 2004, but will terminate only with the
approval of the Federal court. So, there’s not-- While there may be a sunset
provision, it’s not -- we don’t tell you when it’s sunset. The court tells us when
it’s sunset.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: It can end earlier, too.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: And it can
continue.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: It can also-- If it’s determined that
we’ve been making tremendous progress, etc., then the consent decree can be
lifted before that time, too. Is that correct?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: It could,
but-- Yes, it can. And there’s a provision built. We must be in compliance
with all of the tasks for two years before that can happen. Candidly, I don’t
see that will happen. And, again, not without -- not because there’s been a lack
of effort or direction. I think this proved to be more onerous than was
thought.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Understandable.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: So there is
that provision. And, of course, there is-- We have an adversary in this, which
is the Department of Justice, Division of Civil Rights. And they certainly will
have their say as to whether or not a consent decree should be lifted, either in
total or in part.

The other area I wished to speak about was MAPS, which is this
early warning system. When I became the Director a few months ago, I will
tell you that this was the most difficult area for me to get my arms around.
And maybe, because I’m not quite computer phobic, but I’m not computer
literate that--

Again, the State Police are operating in unchartered waters here.
There is no early warning system program like this in the United States. The
State Police could not look elsewhere to see where they could mimic or capture
the same--

The city of Pittsburgh has a program known as PARS, P-A-R-S is
the acronym. One thing I learned in this job, Mr. Chairman, is there are a lot
of acronyms you have to know.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Right. (laughter)

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Pittsburgh,
also, has been operating under a consent decree -- both the city of Pittsburgh
and the Pittsburgh Police Department, which, by the way, was just lifted
almost totally.

Their computer system apparently works very well. It’s been
approved by the Federal monitors for monitoring their compliance. But when
we looked at it, it didn’t quite match up with what we’re doing. The MAPS
program is intended not so much to be a one-stop shopping, but to provide
information at every supervisory level, from the sergeant up to the colonel or
the superintendent of the State Police, as to the activity of the State Police, not
just on the roadway, but as to all activity -- the field operations units and,
certainly, the road troopers. It’s intent is to provide a basis for review, on an
ongoing basis, of the conduct of individual troopers, squads, stations, many
different ways.

It’s a work in progress, and we are making progress. But I’m here
to say that that will take time. In a meeting with the monitors on Monday
morning, I advised them that I thought that it would be unrealistic to have this
program up and working, and to be working in a meaningful way, the way that
was intended, much before the middle of next year.

Again, the point of that program is to provide some type of early
warning system, but it’s also meant to identify those State Troopers who are
doing exemplary work -- the workers and the people who are doing the job.
And so we must be very careful, when we’re teaching supervisors to go over this
information, that they don’t misrepresent what the troopers in the field are
doing one way or the other, the good or the bad. But it will be working. The
State has invested well over $1.5 million in this effort to move this along.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: You mentioned before two phases, I
guess the design and the implementation of a lot of these recommendations.
I note that in the consent decree, it mentions that within 180 days, following
entry of this decree, that the State will develop a plan for design and
implementing the MAP -- including use of MAP, a timetable for
implementation, etc.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: We’re well
out of time. And, again, not to comment on anyone who went before me, or
came before me, I will say that it was entirely unrealistic. It has been
recognized to be unrealistic by both the Department of Justice and by the
Federal monitors. They are very willing to work with us. They want to see this
system work. And if it takes four years to do it, then that’s what it will take.
But we want it to work.

As I said, one of the difficult aspects of this is it’s not the retrieval
of the data or the entry of the data, it’s the interpretation of the data. And
we’ve got to be very careful that it’s done correctly. So, that is something
that--

There’s a training component to this that once we get it up-- It’s
like we’re building a plane, and we have to train the pilots at the same time
we’re building the plane. But we’re not sure what the plane is going to look
like. It’s a little difficult.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: See, I think that’s a very important
point, because we have read, and I have read, reports that when the Federal
monitor and the Justice Department reviews the proposals, reviews, for
instance, this proposal for MAPS, as an example, we get high rates. We get
high praise for it. They review the proposals and say this is excellent. And
what has happened is that some people have come out and said, “See, we’re
doing a great job because even the Federal government says we’re doing a great
job.” And I want to make it clear that, as you said, there’s two phases to this
thing. And it’s not the implementation-- The results are not necessarily there.
And, obviously, in this case, where we’re talking about a very high-tech area,
the results are not there yet. So, it’s really kind of, sometimes, disingenuous
for some people to say that, “We’re doing a wonderful job. You read the report
in the paper that said the Federal government even said we’re doing a great
job.” And I read it, and I say, “Yes, it did. It said that the proposals that we
have come up with are magnificent.” Now it’s a matter of being able to find
out when and if what we recommend is able to be implemented and when it
begins to have an impact on the Department itself.

The same thing with the training, for instance -- with the diversity
training and all that other kind of business. The fact is, it takes a while to filter
down through 2700 people in a force like this. It’s going to be a while. I hope
that we’ll be able to begin to see the results of the diversity training, and etc.

It’s more important-- For instance, a governor once said, “New
Jersey and you, perfect together.” And I’d like to see people perfect together.
But I’d like to see people understand each other and be able to accept each
other’s differences, etc. And that’s been one of the things that’s been lacking,
I think, in the past.

I think we have an excellent -- I think we have a very, very good
plan on paper. Some of it’s being implemented. As you say, there’s a lot that
needs to be done. I really have a lot--

I know that you’re from Union County. And I know that with you
being there -- I know that if it can be done, it will be done. And we’re looking
forward to it and making sure that this consent decree does, in fact, do what
it’s -- we hope that it will do in the final analysis -- and that is, develop a police
force that we’re all very, very proud of and feel a part of.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.

I just would conclude by saying that there is work to be done. One
more time, it is not the position of the Attorney General of this State that this
is the be all and end all or that this is all that may be needed. It’s a dynamic
process. We will make change that is necessary to make the Division of State
Police the finest in the United States of America. And we’ve made some
strides, but we’re not there yet.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Thank you.

Yes, Assemblywoman Cruz-Perez.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CRUZ-PEREZ: Just a real quick question.

You kept talking about a component -- a training component. Can
you explain that to me? What kind of training?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Sure. There
are various-- There’s mandatory training by virtue of the decree. And what I
mean by that is that the decree states that within a certain time frame, an
annual basis -- semi-annual -- the State Police must receive training on cultural
awareness and cultural diversity, which we have to carry out on ethics, on
search and seizure. And that’s in addition to a lot of other mandatory courses
that are required by the Attorney General: domestic violence, things of that
nature. So, that’s the training. That’s the piece of this.

The point is, and I think the Chairman has made this point, that
to effect a sea change in the way, perhaps, certain troopers think and how they
view the public that they serve, and to be more aware of how their conduct can
be harmful in some instances--

So, training is an important component, and it has to be ongoing.
And this is certainly an area that, well beyond the consent decree, the State
Police will continue in the various areas.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CRUZ-PEREZ: So what you’re telling me
is that every State Trooper in the State of New Jersey is mandated to take this
training?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Yes.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CRUZ-PEREZ: Since the consent decree
became mandatory for the Department of State Police, do all of the police
troopers have to take this training -- or they’re in the process of taking the
training?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: The answer
is yes, and yes. Yes, some have completed the training in the first phase. Some
have completed some of the second-phase training. And it will be completed
over a period-- It’s ongoing because you can’t train them all at once, so you
would bring them in.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CRUZ-PEREZ: Who is offering this
training?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: The Division
of State Police. We had the Cultural Awareness Program -- Cultural Diversity
Program was taught by the Anti-Defamation League. We have other lecturers
from the outside that come in and deal with this training. The ethics-- There’s
a professor that was hired to teach ethics outside of the State Police. Search
and seizure is taught principally by members of the Division of Criminal
Justice, on an ongoing basis.

We’ve also, in terms of ethics in search and seizure, we -- the State
Police rather, have prepared a CD-Rom so that troopers can continually get
updates in those areas, both in ethics and in search and seizure. So that’s what
I’m saying. It’s an ongoing process.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Excuse me. How long have you been
in this position?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: July 29 I
started. (laughter)

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: I wanted to ask the reaction and the
receptability on a part of current members of the troopers -- State Police.
What’s the reaction to this business about the training on -- even with the
Muslims, or whatever? What’s been the reaction? Is there resistance or are
they with open arms? What’s the reaction of the people on the ground as to
whether or not it’s necessary to have this, or what have you? What’s the
reaction of a lot of the people that have been there for a while?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: I’ll start by
saying each course requires, after it’s given, that there be feedback, literally,
comments given by the participants. And they have to do that, and the
comments have been generally favorable. I can say, and I’ll speak only for
myself, I promised, when I got out of law school, I really wasn’t going to sit in
the classroom too much more if I didn’t have to do it. But, yet, I did attend
continuing legal education courses.

I think part of that is that they’re in the classroom maybe more
than they would like to be. But I don’t think it has anything to do with the
subject matter. I think that’s the only feel that I get -- is that they, perhaps,
would rather be out -- not be in a classroom, but not because it’s cultural
awareness or ethics.

In fact, I think it’s been much welcomed. And I don’t-- It’s
difficult to put your finger on a pulse and say, “Look, this is a tangible result
of all that training. We’ve seen this. We’ve seen that.” I think that’s over a
matter of time. But my answer is, it’s been well-received.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: In the final analysis, I think that
whether or not a person-- If this is part of the job requirement now, and it
wasn’t in the past-- Whether or not a person likes it or not, and they’re
required to do that, they have to do it. And as long as it shows-- As long as
they follow the rules and regulations, etc., that are being set up now, whether
or not their own personal feelings are -- they don’t buy it, it’s up to them. So
there needs to be constant monitoring and supervision. As you say, there’s
spot checks, etc. I think we need to implement that.

I’ve heard from some representatives of the organizations that
these regulations are going to make our guys not want to do their job or be
afraid to do their job, they’re going to be worried about people looking at them
and doing all those kinds of things. I don’t buy that. I’ve said this repeatedly,
I think people are good-natured and that people are out there to do their job,
and they’re not going to shirk their responsibilities simply because they’re now
being asked to do that which is the right thing to do. And I have a lot of faith--
I have far more faith, I think, in a lot of our people in law enforcement than
other people seem to have. I know that the majority want to do the right
thing. And I think that with you at the helm there and your responsibilities --
I think we can begin to see some positive results. But, again, I wanted to make
it clear that we know that their time has not been long enough, that we have
to wait to see the effects of what this consent decree is all about.

I thank you for coming today.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Very well.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I have a question.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Assemblyman Cryan.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Thanks for coming.

I have to tell you, as someone who represents Union County, the
confidence level and having you there, based on your performance as a Union
County prosecutor, is something-- Not only your reputation precedes you, but
I know it’s going to be enhanced by your performance here. It’s a great
pleasure to have you here in that respect.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Thank you.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I wanted to ask about some specific
numbers, in terms of field operations and Internal Affairs, as a result of this
document published yesterday, if you could help me with that.

In the area of consent searches, the data that -- and if I’m off or
out of line here, you can just tell me. But I’d like to-- We do look at numbers
in terms of a gauging of whether it’s a success or not. But at least we can
interpret it. My understanding is that we’ve gone from 59 consent searches in
the past six months to 20 in this reporting period. Is that correct?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: That’s
correct, yes, sir. That’s Division-wide, by the way. That’s the entire State of
New Jersey.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Division-wide.

This find rate data where-- What I’m actually going to ask you to
do is to -- 40 percent for whites -- 46 percent for whites, 40 percent for black
drivers, and 75 percent for Hispanics. Could you enlighten me a little bit on
what that means?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Well, the
find rate is if you were to ask an individual for permission to search, or if you
didn’t ask the permission but believed you had probable cause to search,
whether or not you found weapons or drugs. That’s what a find rate means.
So, 46 percent is a little less than half of the time. A trooper’s hunch or
reasonable -- I shouldn’t say hunch, that’s wrong -- reasonable suspicion or
belief that he or she had probable cause is what that means.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Okay. So, we see consent searches --
I mean, literally from 60 to 20.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Yes.

May I just -- because I -- a lot of people have commented upon
that. I think there could be a number of reasons for that. But one must keep
in mind that there has been a change in the law as to consent searches, which
I know everyone is very familiar with. If you’re not, it’s that, before, one could
request consent to search without having a reasonable, articulable suspicion or
any other-- Of course, this has been the subject of a great deal of discussion as
to its abuse or potential for abuse.

Now a State Trooper must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion
before he may request consent, or she may request consent, to the search of a
driver or an occupant of the vehicle, or even an individual on the street, by the
way -- and must then obtain the approval of a supervisor before they can go
ahead with it. And, where practical, if it’s on the road, have a supervisor on
the scene. I think those factors -- the more stringent legal standard, the
supervisory standards have worked to reduce a lot of the request for consent.
I think it’s made the troopers, frankly, much more thoughtful in terms of how
they go about their job.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: So, the change in procedures and the
changes in training, in your opinion, have led to a reduction in the amount of
consent searches but made them more effective. Would that be correct?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: I believe
they’re-- I think they probably are more effective. I think the numbers show
they’re probably more effective. But I think those are among the factors: The
change in the law, as I said, and the change in the process. They have worked
to reduce the numbers.

It may also be that some of the troopers are less inclined to ask for
consent because they may be concerned that it will be a problem or they’ll get
in trouble. I mean, I will be very blunt with you. That could be a factor, too.
But we’ll have to watch that over time and see. Maybe that’s the real number
or maybe-- It’s hard to say.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: The second area I wanted to ask
about, because you talked about field operations and Internal Affairs-- I just
want to get some of these numbers straight, just so I understand. During this
reporting period, you completed 468 internal investigations and opened 263.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Correct.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: These are correct?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Correct.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Could you talk to me about this
review, because I was concerned about some of the previous testimony, or
whatever you call it? A review of 213 completed investigations indicated that
all were complete and in accordance with established standards and practices.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Yes, that’s
done by the independent monitors. That satisfaction comes from a review by
the Federal monitors of those matters. That’s not State Police Affairs or the
State Police being satisfied with themselves. That’s the Federal monitors being
satisfied.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Okay. Well, I have one other area I’d
like to ask about.

What enforcement practices do you have as part of your office?
One of the bills we are considering-- Let me put this question in the context
that I just want to understand. We are considering a bill next week that may
add some additional oversight to the State Police. In fact, it may add an office
of an independent prosecutor. And we’ll consider that and debate that on
Monday.

But can you edify for me, or at least have me understand-- I’m not
asking whether you’re familiar with the bill or not. But I do want to
understand your powers and your independent process, as opposed to what
may be there as a result of the potential under this new bill. Could you take
me through that?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Okay. I am
familiar, somewhat, with the proposed legislation. I’m an Assistant Attorney
General. I answer to two individuals in the Attorney General’s Office, First
Assistant Peter Harvey and Attorney General Samson. I am charged with the
responsibility of the oversight of the State Police, to review all aspects of the
State Police. I certainly have supervisory control over them. If I believe that
there is something that’s afoul, I am charged with -- I not just can, but I must,
step in and investigate. And we’ve done that in certain areas, some of which
I cannot speak about here today. But we’ve done that -- where allegations have
been made about members of the Division of State Police. We have followed
through on that.

So, oversight, I think, is the word. But we are-- I am charged, as
I said, with the responsibility of making sure that the State Police do the job
that they’re supposed to do. And we can do everything from bring our own
Internal Affairs investigation through members of the Office of State Police
Affairs. We can refer matters to the Division of Criminal Justice if we believe
criminal activity is taking place. To add a layer to that, certainly while the
consent decree is in effect, maybe even beyond, of course, we have to answer
to the Department of Justice, Division of Civil Rights. They oversee everything
that’s done, as well.

I don’t know if I answered your question, but there are certain
layers right now. And we also have, within the Office of the Attorney General
-- I know you’re familiar with that, I referred to it earlier -- the Office of
Government Integrity, which we have also referred some matters to, where we
believe the Office of State Police Affairs may be in conflict or that it’s a matter
that’s more suitable for that entity.

One of the areas, and this was before I became director -- was in
the area of Internal Affairs backlog, which I referred to earlier. The Office of
Government Integrity investigated that to make sure that there was no
problem.

So, I think that if the opinion you seek from me is, is there
sufficient oversight or direction, I will say, not just because it’s me, but I would
have answered yes, in the affirmative, to that. That’s not to say that things
couldn’t change, hopefully, if an event occurs where that’s proven not to be so.
But, as I sit here today, that would be my answer.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Has the monitor noted improvement
in each of the six reports?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Yes. You see,
there have been areas where there was improvement and then -- I don’t want
to refer to it as backsliding -- maybe not the same level of improvement in the
next reporting period. And, to be perfectly blunt, that has to do with an
approach based on trying to do this in a timely manner that can best be
described as a triage approach -- try to take care. If there seemed to be a
deficiency in training, the resources were thrown there, maybe to the detriment
of another aspect of the consent decree.

What we are engaged in today is a methodical approach that’s not
married to a time frame, necessarily. It’s married to results, married to getting
the job done the way it’s supposed to be done. And I think this is a more
effective approach to bring about compliance.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Thank you.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Thank you very much.

There was a consent decree at one time before, was there not, in
the State of New Jersey? Did we enter into a consent decree at some time in
the past that you know about?

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: I’m not
familiar.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FINKEL: I believe there
was, but I’m not up on the details.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Okay, sure. During our hearings, we
learned that there had been. And when that decree was lifted, recruitment
slipped, and we weren’t doing the kinds of things that were going on while the
State was under this consent decree. So, during that period of time, there
wasn’t-- Many of the improvements that had begun to be made stopped, and
we retrogressed, in other words. And so now we are, again, under a consent
decree.

One of the reasons, and you touched upon it -- one of the reasons
why legislation that I’ve -- it’s been mentioned that I’m authoring -- is because,
at the present time, there’s a consent decree that is in effect. But, when that’s
lifted, we want to make sure that the improvements that we’re talking about,
such as an independent prosecutor, are codified, that they, in fact, would be
there. It would not be at the whims of whichever administration or whichever
AG happens to be there. So we feel it’s important.

These things, as I’ve said in the past, came about because of
decades of practices that should not have taken place anyway. And so, we’re
at a situation now. It’s my hope that the independent prosecutor legislation
will, in fact, pass, but that it will work itself out of business. I hope that down
the line we won’t have a need for that.

But I think that it can be understood that the reason for these
proposed pieces of legislation is because of the conditions that exist for many,
many decades. And during the period of time that the consent decree was
lifted, we, in fact, did slip backwards. That’s been one of the concerns that we
have had.

I want to thank you very much. As I said before, we’re here for
enlightenment, and you have helped to enlighten us a great deal. I’m
encouraged by your being in the position that you’re in, because I think that
we can look for some positive kinds of improvements that we so sorely need.

Thank you very much.

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL MANAHAN: Thank you
very much.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: I think we have one more person to
testify. Is Dave Jones here from the STFA, State Troopers Fraternal
Association?

Good morning. Would you identify yourself and your
organization, and you’re an aide-de-camp.

D E C T E C T I V E D A V I D J O N E S: A supervisor, actually, sir.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Oh, okay.

DETECTIVE JONES: Good morning.

I’m David Jones, Vice President with the State Troopers Fraternal
Association. This is Sergeant Stephen Sternik, with the State Police
Noncommissioned Officers Association. Together, we represent 2500 of the
2700 members who are enlisted in the State Police.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time, and members of the
Committee.

Earlier today, sir, you asked a question to one of the other men
testifying as to whether or not there was a light at the end of the tunnel and
if it was an oncoming train. We truly believe that that light at the end of the
tunnel is the dawn of a new day. There was some well-founded criticism
against the State Police, having to do with issues which have been before this
and other Committees over an extended period of time.

We have addressed them. We’ve dealt with the consent decree.
We’ve dealt with those mandates that both this legislative body, the people
that we serve in the Federal government have put on us. And we feel that we
have a good record of success, that we’re moving in the right direction.

Just to clear up a point: Over 20 years ago, there was an issue that
had to do with hiring. The people in the State Police, as was the case in a large
number of police and fire departments throughout the country, had a
disproportionate representation of females and minorities. Ourselves, as well
as many other agencies, entered into an employment consent decree, the
purpose of which was to, again, be better reflective, and that dealt with a
multitude of issues.

We successfully met the number that the Federal government had
put on. I believe it was 14 percent at the time. And that’s why that decree was
removed. It wasn’t because we were doing anything wrong or we hid. It was
because we met the goals of the government. That’s over 20 years ago.

For that matter, the State Police is the only agency ever to run an
all-female class. When we realized that our strict physical standards were going
to eliminate most women, more than 20 years ago, in 1980, we put forward a
class that would have only women so that they were competing in and amongst
their pairs and not with males.

That has recently manifested itself in a female lieutenant colonel
being appointed in the last round of promotions. I think it’s important for
people to realize that. We recognize that we are public servants. We recognize
that we have a very critical balance.

This morning, a gentleman, who at one time called Camden home,
who had gone underground in Washington state into Tacoma and had, we
believe, a significant role in the sniper shootings in Washington, D.C., was
arrested with New Jersey tags.

We, as an agency, realize that bad guys, criminals, terrorists, call
them what you like -- that they don’t recognize political subdivisions. They
don’t recognize boundaries. And for years, our ability to interact and interdict
with people who are traveling our highways and byways was done with the
belief that it was going to be in the best interest of the public. Clearly, some
of the anecdotal conversations and some of the heart-felt testimony by people
over the last two-and-a-half years have indicated that if, in fact, that was our
goal, it was at the constitutional expense of many of the members of our
society. And we all recognize that there is three components to that. There’s
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And clearly, without life, your
liberties and your pursuit of happiness are nil.

But while we were busy protecting life, public interest, and public
property, if we found ourselves in an area where those liberties, those
detentions, those unwarranted stops, or those criminal profiling issues became
racial profiling issues, then we’re wrong. And that’s my mea culpa, and we’re
going to move forward from this day on.

What we’ve done successfully with all of these programs is, we’ve
found ourselves on the cutting edge. What Pittsburgh and other cities haven’t
been able to do -- and Pittsburgh is finally getting under that consent decree,
out of their consent decree, which is much older than ours -- is that we’ve
recognized a problem, we’ve tackled it head-on, and we will live with no
standard less than what everything else in the State Police does, and that is the
best possible product. And I will promise you that. That’s where my members
are going. That’s where we hope to be.

On a couple of minor issues, such as MAPS-- The problem with
MAPS is that there is no system in place. If I’m assigned to Bloomfield, for
instance, on the Garden State Parkway, an area that many people are familiar
with, and my regular patrol area is the northern terminus, where New York
state and New Jersey come together, as opposed to another trooper who may
be assigned to the Newark tolls or the Essex tolls-- If I’m not working rush
hour, then my regular interdiction on that highway in North Jersey, just north
of the barracks, is going to represent a disproportionate amount of white
caucasian members of society, as opposed to somebody working in the
Irvington tolls after rush hour, or the Essex tolls, where it’s going to be
reflective of the communities of Orange, East Orange, Irvington, Newark, and
the like. So you can have two people working in the same station, working the
same shifts, and when we begin to collect data, there’s going to be a
disproportionate interaction with members of the minority community as it
relates to that station. This is something that there is no real formula for. And
that’s why we are working through a system right now that will identify those
anomalies.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Could you stop there for a second,
please?

DETECTIVE JONES: Sure.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: You’re saying that that barracks,
Bloomfield Barracks, patrols down to Irvington and up to the New York state
line?

DETECTIVE JONES: All the way down to Union, actually, sir.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Down to Union. Okay, fine. You’re
right. Going north on the Parkway up to the New York state line, you’re going
to have fewer and fewer minorities or blacks, etc. But if that -- patrolling those
areas that you mentioned down to Union, you’re going to have a greater
density of minorities there. So you’re saying that it skewed the report
somehow. Say that again.

DETECTIVE JONES: It’s going to skew the numbers. It’s going
to be reflective.

DETECTIVE JONES: Excuse me, sir. It is going to skew the
numbers. It’s going to be reflective of the constituents in that area, which will
not necessarily display itself in a system that doesn’t have those kinds of
numbers incorporated in it.

We had an anecdotal situation whereby a sergeant was called in.
And he was questioned about his disproportionate amount of Hispanic arrests.
He had 11 arrests, and they were all Hispanic. What the reports didn’t show,
what the people didn’t know, was that he got called to an area to back up.
Ordinarily, sergeants don’t engage in the interdiction the same way a trooper
would. They would be a supervisor. So a sergeant doesn’t necessarily make a
lot of arrests. He supervises them. He makes one arrest. It’s a van with 11
illegal aliens. And with people not being able to decipher the information, they
leapt to the conclusion that here’s a guy who may be an issue.

An early warning system is a brilliant idea. It’s too long in coming.
But the problem with MAPS is that there are so many other issues that have
to be addressed that are being looked at right now seriously -- but that there
is no perfect formula in, what everyone here knows as, the most diversified
state in the country. So, we’re dealing with a system that-- I don’t know how
you’re going to have those layers of protection and information included. And
that’s why they’re struggling with it, because they want to do it right. That’s
just food for thought as to why that level of compliance hasn’t been met.

Everything else in the monitors’ report -- and the monitors entered
this as our adversary, not as our advocate -- everything else in the monitors’
report -- those tasks have to be completed. We have to successfully achieve
those issues that were put forward before we get a passing grade on them. And,
say, for a couple, such as MAPS, we have done that. We have done that
successfully. And when you talk about an issue such as Assemblyman Cryan
pointed out -- 231 out of 231 randomly assessed investigations were found to
be perfect. I mean, that’s the Ivory soap. That’s 99.44 percent. That’s an
incredible number. And I would put that number against anyone.

What I do have to beg to differ with the Chairman, respectfully,
on is the chilling effect. We’ve seen, since 1999, a dramatic reduction in the
seizures of weapons, in the seizures of illegal drugs, and in arrests, as well as
drunk driving arrests. I know this because I represent 18 of the 2500 members
that I’m talking about. And there is a chilling effect, and there has been a
chilling effect. And the reality is, the impact is, that drunk driving fatalities are
up considerably and that violent crime is up in New Jersey, considerably. And
now, fortunately, there is a checks and balance here.

Getting back to my original point, when we start talking about life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- in that balancing act between liberty
and life, unfortunately, now we haven’t been able to meet that perfect balance.

And I, again, respectfully, have to point out that what I’m talking
about, when you talk about the great faith that you have in human nature --
and I thank you for that, and I thank you for, time and again, saying that this
is an issue -- this racial profiling issue hasn’t been an issue for the vast majority
of my membership, but, rather, for a select few who have engaged in an
unconstitutional, immoral, and unethical practice.

What I say is that, when the guys are out there and they’re saying
that they’re afraid to make stops, they’re afraid to engage in this interaction,
because they don’t know how it’s going to be viewed, and because of the
impact on their career-- The reality is in the numbers. Although your insight,
if it were correct, would be wonderful, the reality is that the numbers are down,
crime is up, victimization is up in New Jersey. Is there a nexus there? I can
tell you yes. My members report to me on a regular basis that they’re not
going to engage in certain activities at the expense of their career, their
reputation, their being labeled a racist or a racial profiler. And this isn’t
supposition. These are hard facts. These are hard numbers.

That being set aside, I do believe that the train is on the downside
of the hill. I believe that we will work through these issues where people,
again, will recognize that the Legislature, the media, people such as Mr.
Buckman will look at the greater good and will achieve that balance. And guys
will come back to having faith in the people who will support them. And we
will get there.

We recognize the great work that the Black and Latino Caucus
did. We appreciate the light that was cast upon this sin. But we have to
balance that against the interest of nine million people in this state. And, as
I said earlier, is there anything short of an outright violation that anybody
wouldn’t have done to capture this madman? And does he require a need --
the use of all agencies and all powers to be, within constitutional bounds, to
have him stopped? Luckily, that’s worked itself out. And that’s the kind of
issues that we deal with every day, protecting victims, as well as protecting the
ordinary citizen in his pursuits of his liberties.

I thank you. And I’ll take any questions.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I have a couple.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Let me just--

Thank you for your testimony.

You asked whether there’s a nexus between the attention that’s
being cast upon the State Police, because of previous bad practices, and the
reduction of stops, reduction of finding firearms, etc. You said that there is a
definite correlation between the two -- that there are officers that are reluctant
to carry out their duties or responsibilities, because they’re afraid of being
called a racist or things of that nature. You say there’s a definite correlation
between the two?

DETECTIVE JONES: There’s an absolute chilling effect based
upon what has transpired over the last two-and-a-half years.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Where -- and I’ve asked you from time
to time-- Where were those same officers -- and I suppose we’re talking about
people who have been members of the Department or Division for a long time.

And the question I frequently ask is, where were these same
officers when they were aware of the practices of racial profiling? And I ask,
where were these officers when-- Were they among the 75 troopers who
coached Hogan and Kenna, for instance? I think Kenna and Hogan said that
after this shooting of the van, they were coached by 75 officers, troopers, on
how to answer these questions.

So my question, then, it’s a kind of a conundrum for me, is, where
were these same people when these very obvious illegal practices were being
conducted? I just don’t know. It seems to me that we would not be -- and I’ve
said this to you and other representatives -- we would not be in this place
where we are if these same troopers, who are concerned about being falsely
accused, had stood up to some of the other ones that we have finally found,
through testimony, were, in fact, engaging in these kinds of practices that were
illegal and based upon the race and ethnicity of the people.

Where were these same people to try to make sure that their
cohorts, the colleagues, were not practicing this? Were they not aware of these
kinds of practices that were going on? And were they not aware of the 75
troopers that coached Hogan and Kenna? How do we address that kind of a
situation?

And also, finally, you do know that the minority community is as
concerned about law and public safety as the other community, and that
minority communities also would like to have protection and fair justice, etc.

So I just don’t know. The question, number one, is where was the
reaction of your good guys when, we know for a fact, there was illegal behavior
going on? And where are these 75 troopers that coached? I think it was
Hogan and Kenna -- they said that they were coached on how to mislead the
investigation. I just would like to hear that side of it.

DETECTIVE JONES: First, on Hogan and Kenna, sir, it wouldn’t
be proper for me to enter into an extended dialogue, because that’s the matter
of a very serious criminal investigation being headed by the Attorney General’s
Office. But if you could take a look at Hogan and Kenna and what they said
and what they did in the environment that they were in-- Let’s find out how
accurate that information is going to be as it relates to whether or not there
was criminality.

When I arrive at a scene of a shooting where a trooper almost got
run over or another trooper is engaged in a fire fight, where I have vehicles
literally slamming into other vehicles and blowing up, and I have four injured
people-- When I arrive there, or anyone else arrives at that scene, they are
going to offer counseling and friendship and support, and those things typical
of anybody else involved with such a traumatic event. Whether that
constitutes a legality-- I’m sure that it doesn’t. I know what goes on with
scenes like that. I wasn’t at the Hogan-Kenna shooting, but I’ve been at
enough incidents similar to it to tell you what goes on. And because you show
up to do your job -- many of the guys off duty -- doesn’t mean that there was
any criminality, doesn’t mean that there was any wrongdoing.

If I tell you to sit down, get a drink of water, and collect your
thoughts, that doesn’t constitute a wrong doing. That’s a friend and a fellow
trooper. If I say, “I’ll take care of the people who are injured so that you don’t
have to deal with that event, so that you’re not going to be further
traumatized, or so that the individuals aren’t further afraid of the person who
they think shot them,” is just good police work

I think we’re way over the top when we suggest that there were 75
co-conspirators. Hogan and Kenna said what they had to say, and I’ll leave it
at that. But that matter will work itself out. And if there are culpable bodies
who interfered with the investigation, I say off with their heads. But if there’s
not, let’s not leap to the conclusion before we do a full and thorough
investigation. Kindly, I submit that.

On the matter of where these other troopers were over the years
while these incidents were taking place-- I know what went on in the locker
room, and I know what went on in the street. And most of the guys were out
there interdicting criminals, seizing weapons, returning stolen cars to their
owners, and locking up bad guys. And were there a handful of people out there
who were engaged in a practice-- I said it before, and I’ll say it again,
absolutely. Clearly, the numbers show that there were a handful of people who
engaged in a practice, again, that was clearly wrong.

But when we start talking about numbers, and we talk about, as
you said, people of the minority community being concerned about this--
When Mr. Buckman was up here doing his rant on the Soto case, where he had
a couple of college students trying to put together a statistical analysis-- The
Department of Justice looked at that and said, “Hey, what is going on here?
Why don’t we take an empirical data study being done by scientists and
researches and find out what the true number is?” And when we had the
anomaly of 40 percent of the stops in the Moorestown area involving members
of the minority community, black, Hispanic, and the like-- Why was that
number there?

Well, an independent third party whose goal, whose motivation
was to try to support or find fault with the way we did things -- that’s why
those numbers were off. You know what they turned around and said --
because these are the egregious violators, and these violators are in exact
proportion to what the stops were.

So there really wasn’t an insidious reason behind it. It was a
statistical anomaly based upon their own culpability, the own behavior of the
motorist. And there’s different reasons for that. And later on, when it was
done scientifically, it was outlined. And not only did Mr. Buckman fail to
point that out, what he also failed to point out was the most critical thing in
the back of that report says that we also took a look at who’s dying in crashes,
who’s dying in car accidents. And, disproportionately, it was young, black
males who were being killed, the same people who have the highest rate of
victimization for violent crime in New Jersey.

And what the report said -- this should be maybe like the tobacco
ads. This should be something where we should go into these communities and
say, “Do you realize that because of the rate of speed you’re driving at, or not
wearing your seat belt, or for a plethora of other issues, you’re dying
disproportionate to the amount of people in the State of New Jersey who are
usually involved with fatal vehicle accidents?” And that was a
recommendation from this, again, independent scientific research company,
whose credentials were beyond reproach. And that’s why they came in concert
with the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Justice. And
nobody’s even approached or offered out what they were going to do about
that issue. Nobody’s discussed that. Mr. Buckman leaves that out while he
pretends to be championing the rights of all.

Mr. Buckman has a vested interest in what goes on here. I
appreciate his advocacy and what he does for the people that he represents.
He does very, very well. But we have to look at the balance. We have to look
at the broader picture. And I hope that answers a couple of your concerns.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Thank you.

Assemblyman Cryan.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Thank you.

My question is on this nexus issue, where there’s been a chilling
effect. What recommendations do you have, or do your officers have, based
on where we are with this consent decree? What suggestions would you like
to see or recommend in order to not have that chilling effect?

DETECTIVE JONES: I think, in the last week or so, the morale
of the State Police has gone up considerably. I think that the individuals will
soon be getting the message from this Attorney General and First Assistant
Attorney General that the train is over the mountain now. We are on our way
down. It’s going to take time.

This issue, which isn’t just a State Police issue, but a societal
issue-- It didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it didn’t happen overnight. And a
cure isn’t going to come overnight. It’s going to take us a couple more years to
get over this, to realize that-- What a lot of my members say to me is, “Dave,
they’re doing the same thing to us that we’re being accused of.”

When we were talking about training before, Assemblywoman--
When you take a trooper with a good Christian background with good parents
who goes to a good school, and he learned right and wrong in his church pew
and from his mother and father, and you walk in an academic and have him try
to explain ethics to him, that trooper is insulted by that. You better believe he
doesn’t want to be in that classroom listening to some guy who’s collecting a
paycheck while he’s telling him right from wrong, something that he learned
at his mother’s knee, something that he learned at his pastor’s pulpit.

When we deal with issues like that, there’s going to be a certain
amount of resentment. But the problem is, the guys feel that they’re being
grouped, that there’s 2700 people being sent to classes. There’s 2700 people
being mandated to follow all these policies. There’s 2700 people who, because
of the few, are having these additional responsibilities and burdens cast upon
them.

And we can’t pick out one or two. Unfortunately, there is no
scarlet letter for those people who engage in these unethical practices. So it is
going to be the whole group who is going to suffer for the few. And there’s no
way we’re going to get through that in the next year or two, sir, until we work
through it.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: We’ve heard that. And we’ve heard
the Committee Chairman acknowledge the fact that we’re not -- that the group
is a good group. And we’re looking-- I’ve heard him say, repeatedly, a few bad
apples. I’m sure you’ve heard it as well.

DETECTIVE JONES: Absolutely.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: My question is, and I guess I’m going
to summarize your answer to make sure I understand it clearly-- As a result of
this consent decree and the publicity and things that go with it, your testimony
here that it’s had a chilling effect, and a concern about victimization, and the
result that crime has increased in the State of New Jersey, which is a black and
white statistic -- that time and the changes at the top of the State Police are
what’s going to make our troopers more comfortable to perform in their jobs?
Do I understand that correctly?

DETECTIVE JONES: Absolutely. For instance, under Mr.
Manahan, when a complaint comes in and it’s frivolous, it’s done in a manner
so as to gain a bargaining chip. They’re getting moved through the process
much faster. And our vindication, the validation of troopers’ behavior, has
never been higher. This is something where a trooper knows that that
videotape is going to go up to an office. There’s going to be an independent
review. And instead of taking weeks and months and, in many cases, years --
before the 45-day bill passed -- and I don’t think they’re being disingenuous.
It’s just that some of the people haven’t been here for the 23-and-a-half years
that I have. We waited years, sometimes, for an internal to be cleared up.
They were so busy flying out to California to talk to the third person in the car
or something.

And sure, that’s important, but the system that we had in place
meant that your career came to a screeching halt. So, if you were in your 14th
or 15th year, and you were waiting to get promoted, that two-year delay,
because you chose to make that stop and those people made that allegation,
was career-threatening, because that position then went to somebody else. And
you had to keep your fingers crossed and hope that that specter of wrongdoing
was cleared as soon as possible.

What I’m saying, sir, is that there will come a point in time, down
the road, when we’re all going to be on the same page. I honestly believe we’re
closer to that point now than we ever have been, and the members realize that.
We had to do a lot of heavy lifting. And now it’s just a matter of setting the
course and maintaining a course, which is a well-founded issue put forward by
the Chairman.

We do have to stay the course so that we don’t ever have to visit
these issues again. I agree with that wholly.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I need to put you on the spot for one
other area that I want to understand. It’s from earlier testimony. Are there,
in your mind, internal investigations that troopers are victimized as a result of
any whistle blowing?

DETECTIVE JONES: I know exactly where Mr. Buckman was
going with that. And I don’t know--

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: I wasn’t, so help me.

DETECTIVE JONES: I’d rather not-- It was a tragic event. It
was one of his -- a person that he represented, I believe.

What we’re talking about is, when we open up an investigation, we
open it up blindly and under the guise that if there’s wrongdoing, let’s identify
it and root it out. The instances that he’s talking about, there was prima facie
culpability on the people who were involved, and that’s just the nature of the
beast.

Many a time, we wind up with what we call spin-off complaints.
It’s been something that we’ve been trying to eliminate forever, whereby you
and I are riding together, sir, and somebody accuses me of threatening a
motorist or poking them in the chest, and they watch the videotape, and they
realize that you got out of the car with a cigarette or a cup of coffee, you’re the
guy who’s going to get in trouble, if I did everything right. That’s just the
nature of the beast. That’s a spin-off.

What happened was, a lot of these whistleblower incidents cast a
light of review on these troopers and what was going on. And if there were
deficiencies or shortcomings, it’s a two-edged sword, and it cuts both ways.
That’s the unfortunate reality of the unbiased fashion that our internal affairs
bureau works under.

ASSEMBLYMAN CRYAN: Thank you.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Assemblywoman Nilsa Cruz-Perez.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN CRUZ-PEREZ: I just want to comment on
something about the training.

I was raised in a very Catholic environment and very old-fashioned. My parents are very old-fashioned and very Catholic. And if I have
to take training to teach me about other cultures or ethics, I won’t be offended,
because I’m not doing anything wrong. To me, it would be like, “Okay, this
has to be given because it’s part of my job, and this training has to be
provided.”

You say that some officers are offended. I don’t know why. If I
have to take the classes -- I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong, that doesn’t
apply to me. It’s just part of my job.

It’s like I attended a course on sexual harassment. And I said,
“Well, I don’t really-- Nothing that they’re explaining here applies to me, but
that’s okay. I have to take this. This is part of my job.”

And I think this training is part of their job. And if it doesn’t
apply to you, you don’t have to be offended. I just want to clarify that.

You have mentioned something else that puzzles me. You say that
crime has gone up because the officers are afraid to stop people, because
they’re afraid that they will be accused of racial profiling. In my opinion, if I
believe I have evidence, and I know someone is conducting something or doing
something illegal or committing a crime, I will stop that person, regardless of
their race, and I will-- Even if it is my mother, I will stop that person. And I
don’t understand why the State Troopers feel intimidated by doing their job,
just because the person happens to be a minority. They shouldn’t be.

DETECTIVE JONES: Fourth Amendment search and seizure
cases could fill this room. That’s a very important but gray area. And
criminals generally don’t drive around with their SBI numbers on the back of
their cars. So, there has to be a development of probable cause, a development
of reasonable, articulable suspicion, which, again, as Mr. Manahan entered into
that conversation -- he wasn’t privy to the fact, because he just got here -- that
the standard that the Supreme Court used was the standard that we already
had in place in our operating procedure. We were already behaving to that
level long before it became a mandate from the Supreme Court. And their
language and our language mirrors each other. And I have to believe that when
they went looking, somebody had to find one of our SOPs and matched that
up.

But bad guys don’t surrender. They don’t identify themselves.
You have to build a legal bridge to that seizure. And that’s why it’s so
complicated. And when that interaction begins with someone, and it’s based
upon race, according to Soto and according to other cases, it’s a reasonable
defense that can be put forward. And for that matter, it’s grounds for pursuits
civilly -- personally against a trooper also -- that the stop, no matter how
egregious the seizure can be -- it can be a dead body, it could be a thousand
pounds of cocaine, it could be a nuclear missile -- if that seizure is done
improperly, than that individual goes. And that’s going to be weighed against
the fourth amendment. One of the critical issues is going to be whether it was
a race-based stop. So, that’s why these guys have to believe--

If they knew that it was a criminal, that we’re not dealing with
that issue, it’s completely different. It’s when criminals are attempting to
disguise their behavior and we’re attempting to ferret them out within the
guidelines of the constitution. Juxtaposition wise, that’s what makes it
difficult. It’s not just that we’re deciding that we’re not going to stop a
criminal.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Thank you very much for your
testimony. We are a country of laws and not of men. And I think we’re not
going to -- we just simply can’t be overly concerned about-- We have to
protect the constitution. That’s the way it works, and that’s the way it is. And
I agree that if, in fact, there is some training that somebody doesn’t like, grin
and bear it. It’s there. It’s part of the job. And I’m sure that if a gentleman
or a woman doesn’t like it, they could probably find a job elsewhere. If they
don’t want to go learn about other cultures, etc., I’m sure they could probably
find other jobs. But I really don’t think it’s as widespread as you say it is. And
people seem to resent being in a classroom, maybe, except as Mr. Manahan
said, it’s because nobody feels like sitting through a class. But if it’s part of the
job, it’s going to make us have a better law enforcement agency. I think it’s all
to the good.

Thank you.

DETECTIVE JONES: Absolutely, sir.

The issue with the training-- Almost any good police officer or
anybody in any line of work will take as much credible and useful information
as possible.

We’re 400 guys short. We’re through our eighth series of 2700
people going into classes. If you do the man-hours on that alone, we’re talking
about millions of dollars being spent while guys are out there riding around
without a backup, so that somebody can sit somebody down and talk about an
ethical issue as it relates to diversity or anything else. I agree 1000 percent.
And we’ve never had any sort of animus towards those types of classes. It’s
just in that one issue where people had pause.

ASSEMBLYMAN PAYNE: Thank you very much.

Thanks to all of you for attending this hearing. I think they will
be able to get some very positive kinds of reactions to what we’ve learned
today. It will make us better. But I think that, again, what we’ve heard
today-- I think we’re still headed in the direction of improving the conditions
that existed back in ’98 and ’99.